It looks obvious

With all the sympathy to Ted Kennedy’s condition, someone should remind him, politely, that the political system we are living in is a Democracy. Maybe the effect of so many years in DC made someone, like Kennedy, believe his Senate seat is his to pass but it isn’t. Even political dynasties, like the Bush family or the Clinton family, has to go through the motion of the election process.

Ted Kennedy has made clear to confidants that when his time is up, he wants his Senate seat to stay in the family - with his wife, Vicki.

Multiple sources in Massachusetts with close ties to the liberal lion say his wife of 16 years has long been his choice to continue carrying the family flame in the Senate. Kennedy won the seat in 1962; his brother John held it from 1953 to 1960.

The news from England, about the government’s attempt to build a comprehensive database that will store phone calls, emails and web use, is really scary. The justification for handing the government such power is the need to fight terrorism and crime, as if lack of information was the cause for the inability to prevent crime or terror attacks. It seems like Bin-Laden is the perfect excuse for any incursion on human rights and civil liberties. The paradox of permanent elimination of liberties in the name of fighting temporary threats should remind us Franklin’s timeless warning:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The story about the polygamist compound in Texas will probably be material for movies - a mysterious phone call, wired cult that is most likely damaging its children and abusing it women and the heroic raid of the authorities to save the children. Should the authorities have acted upon the phone call - unequivocally yes. This is exactly why we should have a government - to protect human rights, and especially children human rights. Should they have responded differently - probably.

I agree with those who argue that the government should have taken custody on those children that were in danger of abuse even before it had enough evidence. Certain level of suspicion that those young girls are being forced into unconnected sexual relations should be sufficient for a temporary removal of the children and taking custody. However it should be temporary and should be justified with a proof in court. But the decision to take all the children from the compound was a mistake. Nobody argue that the little children were in any immediate danger of abuse and the fact that we don’t approve the lifestyle of this cult isn’t a good enough reason to intervene.

Defining the line, were government justified to intervene when protecting children rights, is always more problematic than when discussing adults rights. After all children has less freedom to decide as they are under the control of their parents. However, the state is often use “children rights” as a tool to assume more power and to restrict more rights. We should carefully prevent cases where a mere disapproval of life style, belief or even less competent parenting become a justified reasons for government regulations and taking over parents control. It seems that in Texas the state crossed that fine line. 

It is common knowledge that government use the fear to promote problematic regulations. It is easier to limits one’s freedom when warning about the “enemy in the gates”. It is much easier to pass laws such as the Patriot Act, or to suspend the Habeas Corpus when the government argue that these are necessary measure to prevent terror attacks. But since it is such an efficient tool to pass legislation it is being used to pass any kind of legislation:

The U.S. Justice Department seems to believe that if you tell a big enough lie, people will listen. Here’s the latest: Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations, without presenting a shred of evidence for his case. He’s doing it to push through a controversial piece of legislation that’s bad for you.

[...]

So why is Mukasey trying to convince people there’s a link between software piracy and terrorism, even though one doesn’t exist? To force Congress to pass controversial intellectual property (IP) legislation that would increase IP penalties, increase police power, set up a new agency to investigate IP theft, and more.

This yet another, small, example why War is the Health of the State

During every election season, and the current one is no exception, many candidates promising to “fix” washington and bring new kind of politic - an bipartisan administration that deal with the problems and not with narrow political interests. They promising to heal the nation from the devision inflicted by past administrations and to calm the social conflicts. Yet, they all fail to achieve this promise, which seems so fundamental in their campaign agenda. 

Are they laying? Are all of them simply cynical politician that identify the public yearn for an administration that is busy solving “issues” and are disgusted from the political game? not necessarily. Even a politician like Romney, that seems to have no core believes, probably thinks that he can bring his experience, as a very successful businessman and very competent manager, and make Washington “Work”. But both Romney and Obama will not change Washington.

A realistic observer has to admit that bipartisan politic is bad politic. I’m not talking about the compromises and the back-room deals, those are the oil that smooth the political system. I’m talking about the appearance of the political game. It is hard to generate support, or to bring people to vote for a politicians if it is hard to find the differences between them. Making those difference apparent, often superficially, is very important if one desire to be elected. Take for example the differences between Clinton and Obama, what are they? how really different are they? it is hard to tell, and the candidates will do their best to make it even harder.

But this is not the heart of the problem.

Over the years the political system got involved in issues that are a meter of individual choice, or social standards. Involving the coercion power of the government in order to force one set of standards instead of leaving those decisions to the local community, or better for the individual, is bound to involve increasing tension between different groups. The idea that decisions in one central place - can, or should, be good for everyone is at best wrong. When every aspect of life is being determined by regulations, and the ability to force them, the differences that otherwise aren’t that important for the social life become crucial.

Promising to “heal” the social fractions by government is, in a liberal democracy, a paradox. Interestingly enough there is only one candidate that point to this paradox - but he doesn’t offer a change, he offer a revolution

“It is not how votes that counts, It’s who counts the votes”
Joseph Stalin

I recommend taking the time and watching this disturbing HBO documentary about the voting process in the US. 

Among other thing we went to the rally yesterday. We found out in the morning in the volunteers HQ that while the candidates will hold a televised debate their supporter will rally, so we decided to participate.

I still remember he bruises from the encounters during political rallies in Israel in early 80’s, when a heated election and political differences meant also the use of some violence. It was usually end up with some shoving and pushing and sometimes, mostly when we were near the Kahane guys. Therefore I was somewhat surprised not to see police standing between the different rallies, making sure that everything remain in order.

It was a very interesting event - supporters of many of the candidates (although we didn’t see any supporter of Mitt Romney) or issue groups - like Health Care, Global Warming, and my favorite - an A Cappella group that sang songs advocating the impeachment of Cheney. The supporter, sometimes mixed together or overwhelmed by other groups, were holding signs and competing with chanting support slogans. Some of the exchanges were simply hilarious : “Tax Hike Mike” chanted the Ron Paul Supporters to silenced the Huckabee supporters, But they were ready with the following “Fair Tax Mike” and the response was immediate “No Tax Paul”.

In the background my wife listen to a conversation between a Ron Paul supporter and a McCain supporter - The Ron Paul supporter tried to explain that monetary policy is the main issue and that, obviously, Ron Paul is the ideal candidate to deal with the economic crisis. Frustrated with the other supporter ignorance he urged him “You have to read Hayek and Mises”. He lost him at “you have to read” observed my wife.

It was a nice celebration of political involvement - the many people that came in a cold night to rally and demonstrate support for political candidate or political cause. Observing the landscape, after driving around yesterday handing campaign materials, is that the political participation here is high. Near many house one can find signs of the different candidate - a declaration of support and commitment. The landscape is covered with those singes and its seems normal for the people here.

There is a reason for optimism. If Fox news, the stronghold of Neoconservativism and stupid right wing propaganda, is denouncing the Patriot Act - than we still have hope. It shouldn’t be so special, after all it was Goldwater who said in his acceptance speech that the American revolution was about freedom from government and it was Reagan’s famous phrase "The Government isn’t the  solution, The government is the problem".

And if we are already on the topic of what should the GOP stand for, here is how a true republican ought to be:

Earlier this week the congress passed, in overwhelming majority, a bill name the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Reading the proposed Bill made me rather confused and worried.

The definitions sections defines Violent Radicalization as:

The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

Since many of the processes of adopting certain ideologies are internal (i.e. through thinking) and develop gradually I can only wonder, or mostly frightened from the implications of, how the legislator suggest to prevent these processes.   

Another interesting definition is the one of Ideology Based Violence:

The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Any law, by definition, contain the "use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence" - otherwise it will have no effect. By omitting the term "legal force" the legislator defined any political advocacy as Ideology Based Violence. I’m careful from suggesting that what the congress aimed to prevent any political advocacy, but the definition is so vague that future act can.    

The  fact is that the legislature face a serious problem dealing with groups that taking advantage of the freedom of expression and tolerance to promote ideologies that aim at destroying the same liberties that protect them. But preventing these liberties, or setting bars for which ideology is permitted and which isn’t is obviously not an appropriate approach. After all we already have enough legal framework that handled with the fine line between freedom of speech and advocacy for violent, why do we need another one?

We discussed the issue of executive power here before, yet this documentary is chilling. And the future isn’t promising any improvement, quite the contrary.

Unless we will see an amazing miracle.